Do you want to discuss boring politics? (35 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It's ironic you were talking about rabbit holes, because you have served up a great element of projection here. Literally the first thing you said on this thread about my immigration points were that my opinions were staggering 'given that I was an immigrant myself'. You then came out with some strange sideways comment about 'immigrants from the wrong countries', which is I presume where you were wanting to go, but again, had no evidence so just went back to making stupid comments.

Look at this article, which is from yesterday. I'm guessing, based on what you have said today, that anyone against this type of person just simply wants less foreigners? I presume I am also not allowed to not want this person in the UK either, because I'm an immigrant myself? Other immigrants in the UK should also have to tolerate this person right, because it is odds with them being an immigrant themselves too?

Convicted rapist among those trying to cross by small boat


About the stature of your post is to get upset about me making comments regarding the Austrian Covid laws, which were words about some very frightening set of ideas. All this when you actively wanted to bring in mandates and segregation. It makes what I said look like a parking ticket in comparison. I still stand by it too, and given how much everyone has gone quiet on it now, and play the pretend amnesty card, it obviously just goes to show how ridiculous (and dangerous) that idea was. The idea that you actively supported. Getting upset at what I said (clearly another example of projection and deflection) when you came out with that is just about the closest working example to show yourself up, as one could possibly invent if they tried. What happens if someone coming on one of the boats hadn't been vaccinated by the way; throw them over the side? You really are a comedy of errors.

Well done for winning the Scottish referendum though.

Let’s reduce all this down to one simple question. Do you agree with the proposed laws on asylum seekers, or not?

 

---

[Grendel]

It implies that an immigrant from a ‘good’ country should have better rights and a better chance of being granted the right to live here than someone fleeing a ‘bad’ one. The whole thing is a deflection from the actual policy being debated anyway

That is tripe. I assume he went through an approved Visa process. So he attained a Visa before going to the country - I had people working for me from India with approved Visas - thats a world away from what we are discussing is it not

 

[skybluetony176]

This relates to an incident on the Isle of Man which it seems has now suspended all sex education at schools pending an enquiry

A drag queen was invited to a school and said there are 73 genders. Also lessons to the Primary School children on oral and anal sex

One child was suspended as they said there were two genders - as the drag queen was offended

Thats really the disturbing aspect of this along with the child receiving death threats for scuffing a copy of the Koran and the mother being advised by the police to grovel to the Mosque for forgiveness.

What does this have to do with the UK government? Why is a Tory MP even bringing it up in parliament. The Isle of Man is a self governing British overseas territory. Nothing to do with the UK government what so ever.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That is tripe. I assume he went through an approved Visa process. So he attained a Visa before going to the country - I had people working for me from India with approved Visas - thats a world away from what we are discussing is it not

The debate was about immigration as a whole. Or at least that’s what it turned into. You have someone going on at length about their issues with increased immigration while they are one themselves.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

True, but more people don’t want it to decrease than do

Barely anyone is an open border advocate, so it’s silly arguing with straw men.

British attitudes to immigration and a bit all over the place like voter attitudes to most things. Have a read of this: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...migration-british-future-ipsos-march-2022.pdf

We by large majorities want people to be able to claim asylum, but then are split on whether to allow people to claim asylum here.

We by large majorities want people to come here for economic reasons. Yet are split on whether we should increase or decrease immigration.

What’s clear is that overall attitudes has softened since 2016. We don’t like freeloaders, fakers, or chancers coming over on dinghies, but are completely unable to explain who exactly it is we want to keep out and how. Which really means the only thing this topic is good for politically is riling people up about something you can’t solve. A strategy which has hardly covered the Tories in glory.

Oh don't get me wrong, I am well onboard with the tories having shit strategies. I don't think what they are doing now is necessarily the right approach either, after a catalogue of absolutely disastrous policies, but something still does need to be done. The idea of processing centres on the continent was a reasonable suggestion put forward. At the end of the day, a large amount of the population still see it as an issue, no matter how much one wants to argue over phrasing on a graph. They will still vote based on it (which is exactly why the tories are doing this stunt). I think it needs to be taken seriously.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

‘Look what’s happening in this school on the IoM’

tbf that makes it all the more surprising, I thought sex ed on the Isle of Man was basically introducing you to your cousins.

 

[Sick Boy]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am well onboard with the tories having shit strategies. I don't think what they are doing now is necessarily the right approach either, after a catalogue of absolutely disastrous policies, but something still does need to be done. The idea of processing centres on the continent was a reasonable suggestion put forward. At the end of the day, a large amount of the population still see it as an issue, no matter how much one wants to argue over phrasing on a graph. They will still vote based on it (which is exactly why the tories are doing this stunt). I think it needs to be taken seriously.

Why would another country in Europe agree to have a UK processing centre?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

The debate was about immigration as a whole. Or at least that’s what it turned into. You have someone going on at length about their issues with increased immigration while they are one themselves.

So I'm not allowed an opinion on this again? Which one is it?

Let’s reduce all this down to one simple question. Do you agree with the proposed laws on asylum seekers, or not?

Well it's clear you want to move away from your car crash posting from today, which I don't blame you for, but if you have read any of the essays that I have written on the subject in hand, you will see that I don't agree with these proposed laws. I've mentioned that several times.

Do I think something needs to be done? Absolutely. Do I think we need to be tougher on those who are not genuine refugees? Yes. Do I think this is the right way to do it? No.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Why would another country in Europe agree to have a UK processing centre?

Why would they not? It's a no brainer.

Anyway, don't take my word for it. Here are a variety of articles from different politically leaning 'news' sources, including comments from that of the French Interior Minister, and Emmanuel Macron himself:

France urges UK to open legal migration route amid Channel crisis

French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin urged Britain on Monday to open a legal route for asylum seekers in order to prevent people risking their lives by taking small boats across the Channel to England.

www.france24.com

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Macron wants Britain to set up an asylum-seeker processing centre in France

FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron wants Britain to set up an asylum-seeker processing centre in Calais to deal with the migrant crisis. He is expected to outline France’s solutions to the problem in…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

So I'm not allowed an opinion on this again? Which one is it?



Well it's clear you want to move away from your car crash posting from today, which I don't blame you for, but if you have read any of the essays that I have written on the subject in hand, you will see that I don't agree with these proposed laws. I've mentioned that several times.

Do I think something needs to be done? Absolutely. Do I think we need to be tougher on those who are not genuine refugees? Yes. Do I think this is the right way to do it? No.

Not at all. It’s just tedious going round in circles.

 

[PVA]

They will still vote based on it (which is exactly why the tories are doing this stunt). I think it needs to be taken seriously.

As shmmeee has said it's not really so much of an issue anymore. But the main reasons the Torie are pulling this stunt is to deflect attention away from all the important stuff that they've fucked up

Cost of living
Brexit
Food shortages
NHS on it's knees
Everyone on strike

etc etc

 

[Grendel]

The debate was about immigration as a whole. Or at least that’s what it turned into. You have someone going on at length about their issues with increased immigration while they are one themselves.

It is but you labelled him an economic migrant - what I’ve described is an economic migrant I think you are a bit confused

 

[shmmeee]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am well onboard with the tories having shit strategies. I don't think what they are doing now is necessarily the right approach either, after a catalogue of absolutely disastrous policies, but something still does need to be done. The idea of processing centres on the continent was a reasonable suggestion put forward. At the end of the day, a large amount of the population still see it as an issue, no matter how much one wants to argue over phrasing on a graph. They will still vote based on it (which is exactly why the tories are doing this stunt). I think it needs to be taken seriously.

The problem is what do you do? We’ve had ridiculous tough targets set by the government for a decade of rising immigration. The fact is it’s hard to stop under international law and the economy needs it. Which people seem to mostly understand. I’m not disagreeing that there’s a constituency of voters for it, I’m just not sure how you’d appeal to them without sounding mad to everyone else.

 

[shmmeee]

That is tripe. I assume he went through an approved Visa process. So he attained a Visa before going to the country - I had people working for me from India with approved Visas - thats a world away from what we are discussing is it not

So you’ve got no issues with Albanians coming as builders and fruit pickers then as they’re on the shortage list?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

So 100% of this board agree that criminilising victims of rape, torture and abuse is wrong, right?

100% of this board recognises this is what the Conservatives' proposed law would do, right?

100% of this board recognises the distinction between this and general immigration debates, right?

 

[skybluetony176]

It is but you labelled him an economic migrant - what I’ve described is an economic migrant I think you are a bit confused

So what is he then? Are you suggesting he’s there to sponge off the Dutch system?

 

[Grendel]

So what is he then? Are you suggesting he’s there to sponge off the Dutch system?

He was given a job before he arrived Tony - he didn’t have to trace Irish ancestry either

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

As shmmeee has said it's not really so much of an issue anymore. But the main reasons the Torie are pulling this stunt is to deflect attention away from all the important stuff that they've fucked up

Cost of living
Brexit
Food shortages
NHS on it's knees
Everyone on strike

etc etc

Yes, I do agree with you on that. Certainly.

 

[skybluetony176]

He was given a job before he arrived Tony - he didn’t have to trace Irish ancestry either

So he was an economic migrant then.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It isn't. The point I was making was that more people think we need less than we currently do, than think we need more. The graph literally says this, no matter which way the left leaning consensus on this forum try to twist it. 'Meh' doesn't mean they want more or less, despite you trying to grab that section and lean it towards your argument. There are a higher percentage of people that feel strongly towards there being too much, than strongly think we need more. It's absolute fact.

It literally doesn't say that at all. Nowhere does it even hint to suggest that people want less immigration. It hints much more strongly that they don't. It's not some left-leaning consensus twisting it, it's literally what it says.

It's an absolute statement - "remain as it is". That literally means they don't want it to go up OR down. If they were leaning towards wanting immigration to go down they'd have picked "reduced a bit". If you're going to interpret the words "remains the same as it is" as meaning they want or would be happy for it to go down slightly you also have to accept they can be interpreted as meaning they want or would be happy for it to go up slightly.

Let's say you had ten sweets and you said that you wanted the number of sweets you had to "remain the same as it is" If I then took one you wouldn't be happy because I've not done what you said. If I argued that I took that as meaning you weren't that bothered and would be accepting if the number of sweets you had actually went down a little you'd say "if that's what I wanted I'd have said I wanted the number of sweets I have to go down a bit".

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

It literally doesn't say that at all. Nowhere does it even hint to suggest that people want less immigration. It hints much more strongly that they don't. It's not some left-leaning consensus twisting it, it's literally what it says.

It's an absolute statement - "remain as it is". That literally means they don't want it to go up OR down. If they were leaning towards wanting immigration to go down they'd have picked "reduced a bit". If you're going to interpret the words "remains the same as it is" as meaning they want or would be happy for it to go down slightly you also have to accept they can be interpreted as meaning they want or would be happy for it to go up slightly.

Let's say you had ten sweets and you said that you wanted the number of sweets you had to "remain the same as it is" If I then took one you wouldn't be happy because I've not done what you said. If I argued that I took that as meaning you weren't that bothered and would be accepting if the number of sweets you had actually went down a little you'd say "if that's what I wanted I'd have said I wanted the number of sweets I have to go down a bit".

I have said time and time again today - the middle bracket are content with it as it is. I'm trying to pull people away from grabbing that demographic to pull into their side as an argument. I only made a counter-point to highlight how silly it was. As well as them wanting the 'sweets' to remain as they are, the also haven't said they want more, and they haven't said they want less. As you said - they would say if they did. That goes either way.

My original statement was that more people want less immigration (and feel stronger about it), than those who want more - based on that piece of research (which means you ignore that bracket of participants who aren't bothered, because it wasn't the point I was making and you cannot move them to try and suit an argument anyway).

The value of significance is also in the numbers. In that study 44% of people want less immigration overall, and only 17% of people wanted to increase it. That's a much larger cut, and shows that it is a big, and worthwhile talking point. Going back to the first thing I said today - you would see a lot less resistance on attitudes towards genuine refugees if those people were listened to. They don't feel they have been in a very long time, which is also one of the reasons (among many, many other things) why the Tories will probably lose the next election. I still think it would be prudent for Labour to take this topic seriously in their election campaign however. That doesn't mean gunboats at Dover, it just means some common sense, some genuine ideas, and listening to the electorate.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I have said time and time again today - the middle bracket are content with it as it is. I'm trying to pull people away from grabbing that demographic to pull into their side as an argument. I only made a counter-point to highlight how silly it was. As well as them wanting the 'sweets' to remain as they are, the also haven't said they want more, and they haven't said they want less. As you said - they would say if they did. That goes either way.

My original statement was that more people want less immigration (and feel stronger about it), than those who want more - based on that piece of research (which means you ignore that bracket of participants who aren't bothered, because it wasn't the point I was making and you cannot move them to try and suit an argument anyway).

The value of significance is also in the numbers. In that study 44% of people want less immigration overall, and only 17% of people wanted to increase it. That's a much larger cut, and shows that it is a big, and worthwhile talking point. Going back to the first thing I said today - you would see a lot less resistance on attitudes towards genuine refugees if those people were listened to. They don't feel they have been in a very long time, which is also one of the reasons (among many, many other things) why the Tories will probably lose the next election. I still think it would be prudent for Labour to take this topic seriously in their election campaign however. That doesn't mean gunboats at Dover, it just means some common sense, some genuine ideas, and listening to the electorate.

No, you don't ignore the people in that bracket.

It's asking people if they want more or less immigration. If you're going to make the statement that most people want less immigration you have to only take those that specifically say they want immigration to be lower and put it against the entire sample. That is the bottom two bars. if you add them together it is about 45%. That is less than half. Therefore a minority of people want immigration to be lower.

The same is true the other way. if you're saying most people want more immigration then you can only take the top two bars against the whole, which would be about 15%. Again a minority. But no-one here is arguing that.

It's KS2 maths.

Question 1.
The number 9 is followed by the number 8.

Which of the following statements are true.
a) the number has gone up.
b) the number has gone down.
c) the number has remained as it is.

No 'left-leaning' people on here are saying that graph says that people want higher immigration levels (though it is saying they are happy with more migrants overall). The only person twisting it to fit their argument is you by saying that the people in the middle don't count. You are literally ignoring 40% of the people that responded.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It literally doesn't say that at all. Nowhere does it even hint to suggest that people want less immigration. It hints much more strongly that they don't. It's not some left-leaning consensus twisting it, it's literally what it says.

I'd have quite happily believed most people wanted less immigration if he hadn't put up that graph proving otherwise!!

 

[Grendel]

No, you don't ignore the people in that bracket.

It's asking people if they want more or less immigration. If you're going to make the statement that most people want less immigration you have to only take those that specifically say they want immigration to be lower and put it against the entire sample. That is the bottom two bars. if you add them together it is about 45%. That is less than half. Therefore a minority of people want immigration to be lower.

The same is true the other way. if you're saying most people want more immigration then you can only take the top two bars against the whole, which would be about 15%. Again a minority. But no-one here is arguing that.

It's KS2 maths.

Question 1.
The number 9 is followed by the number 8.

Which of the following statements are true.
a) the number has gone up.
b) the number has gone down.
c) the number has remained as it is.

No 'left-leaning' people on here are saying that graph says that people want higher immigration levels (though it is saying they are happy with more migrants overall). The only person twisting it to fit their argument is you by saying that the people in the middle don't count. You are literally ignoring 40% of the people that responded.

There aren’t many left leaning people on here to be fair - if there were they’d be in the reduce immigration bracket

The funny thing is there was an actual voter when over 50% wanted something and 4 years of arguments ensued pretending they didn’t

 

[Grendel]

I'd have quite happily believed most people wanted less immigration if he hadn't put up that graph proving otherwise!!

It’s a silly argument really

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

No, you don't ignore the people in that bracket.

It's asking people if they want more or less immigration. If you're going to make the statement that most people want less immigration you have to only take those that specifically say they want immigration to be lower and put it against the entire sample. That is the bottom two bars. if you add them together it is about 45%. That is less than half. Therefore a minority of people want immigration to be lower.

The same is true the other way. if you're saying most people want more immigration then you can only take the top two bars against the whole, which would be about 15%. Again a minority. But no-one here is arguing that.

It's KS2 maths.

Question 1.
The number 9 is followed by the number 8.

Which of the following statements are true.
a) the number has gone up.
b) the number has gone down.
c) the number has remained as it is.

No 'left-leaning' people on here are saying that graph says that people want higher immigration levels (though it is saying they are happy with more migrants overall). The only person twisting it to fit their argument is you by saying that the people in the middle don't count. You are literally ignoring 40% of the people that responded.

You won't listen, and you are refusing to read what I have said. My original statement that I have repeated over and over is that more people want less immigration in the UK than those who want more. I also said the number of people that want less migration is high, and should be taken seriously (at 44% it is actually close to being a majority anyway, and a significant number). You won't take that seriously, neither most people on this thread - which is one of the reasons why your side has not won an election in so long.

In that regard - the middle ground doesn't count. You cannot just recruit them to your side of the argument (which is what you are doing and then having the cheek to accuse me of). Unless you are getting so muddled up with this, I can only see that you are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Largely because you don't have any actual arguments. You don't want to accept that a lot of people are not happy with the high levels of immigration, which is an absolute fact.

The KS2 maths here is that 44 is bigger than 17 - that's all there is to it.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I'd have quite happily believed most people wanted less immigration if he hadn't put up that graph proving otherwise!!

I think we need to sign you up for the KS2 maths as well.

 

[David O'Day]

wow, they are still on at it

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You won't listen, and you are refusing to read what I have said. My original statement that I have repeated over and over is that more people want less immigration in the UK than those who want more. I also said the number of people that want less migration is high, and should be taken seriously (at 44% it is actually close to being a majority anyway, and a significant number). You won't take that seriously, neither most people on this thread - which is one of the reasons why your side has not won an election in so long.

In that regard - the middle ground doesn't count. You cannot just recruit them to your side of the argument (which is what you are doing and then having the cheek to accuse me of). Unless you are getting so muddled up with this, I can only see that you are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Largely because you don't have any actual arguments. You don't want to accept that a lot of people are not happy with the high levels of immigration, which is an absolute fact.

The KS2 maths here is that 44 is bigger than 17 - that's all there is to it.

Fair enough, the graph shows that more people want immigration to come down that go up. But you don't get to then extrapolate that as being the will of the people by ignoring those in the middle.

It is literally your comprehension of the words. "Remain the same as it is" is not a don't care/don't know option, which is what you're treating it as. It's a specific statement that as well as saying they don't want immigration to go up they DON'T want immigration to come down either. Maybe that's an error of the methodology and there should have been a don't know/don't care option as well to prevent confusion. Maybe it wasn't included deliberately for that reason. But ultimately what it unquestionably says is that most of the respondents did not say they wanted immigration to come down. That is an fact. It cannot be argued or denied.

And then we get down to the arguments as to WHY there are a lot of people unhappy with the level of immigration, a lot of which is just factually untrue. We aren't a soft touch. We don't take more migrants/asylum seekers than other countries. Immigrants aren't a drain on the economy or massively increase crime. This is what the official government figures show. It's basically politicians just agreeing with a set of people to make them vote for them (and that is true of all political persuasions as both sides are to the right of where their policy ought to be according to the actual data). Quelle surprise.

It'd be like a majority of people saying they're scared of witches. Someone wanting power and money comes along and says he'll protect them from the witches, even though those that could be described as 'witches' are nothing like what the majority of society perceives them to be. But then to keep that power and money the 'protector' has to make the almost non-existent witch problem seem even worse so they keep on giving him power and money to find and get rid of witches. So he accuses, blames and demonises honest ordinary people to fit the narrative the majority of society has decided on. it sounds bonkers but that's literally what happened in the 16th century. This is a modern day equivalent.

Basically, these people just believe that there's too much immigration and it's massively detrimental. Evidence doesn't back it up. But when you point that out they refuse to accept it. So a set of people with a vested interest just agree with them and say they'll sort out all these massive problems that aren't anywhere near as bad in reality to get them to vote for them. So you're then in the weird position of a having a government deliberately inflating a problem that the people supposedly want to reduce and have voted that government in for, even though they're the people making it seem worse than it is.

When they say "you're not listening to us" what they mean is "you're not agreeing with us".

 

[SBT]

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Fair enough, the graph shows that more people want immigration to come down that go up. But you don't get to then extrapolate that as being the will of the people by ignoring those in the middle.

It is literally your comprehension of the words. "Remain the same as it is" is not a don't care/don't know option, which is what you're treating it as. It's a specific statement that as well as saying they don't want immigration to go up they DON'T want immigration to come down either. Maybe that's an error of the methodology and there should have been a don't know/don't care option as well to prevent confusion. Maybe it wasn't included deliberately for that reason. But ultimately what it unquestionably says is that most of the respondents did not say they wanted immigration to come down. That is an fact. It cannot be argued or denied.

And then we get down to the arguments as to WHY there are a lot of people unhappy with the level of immigration, a lot of which is just factually untrue. We aren't a soft touch. We don't take more migrants/asylum seekers than other countries. Immigrants aren't a drain on the economy or massively increase crime. This is what the official government figures show. It's basically politicians just agreeing with a set of people to make them vote for them (and that is true of all political persuasions as both sides are to the right of where their policy ought to be according to the actual data). Quelle surprise.

It'd be like a majority of people saying they're scared of witches. Someone wanting power and money comes along and says he'll protect them from the witches, even though those that could be described as 'witches' are nothing like what the majority of society perceives them to be. But then to keep that power and money the 'protector' has to make the almost non-existent witch problem seem even worse so they keep on giving him power and money to find and get rid of witches. So he accuses, blames and demonises honest ordinary people to fit the narrative the majority of society has decided on. it sounds bonkers but that's literally what happened in the 16th century. This is a modern day equivalent.

Basically, these people just believe that there's too much immigration and it's massively detrimental. Evidence doesn't back it up. But when you point that out they refuse to accept it. So a set of people with a vested interest just agree with them and say they'll sort out all these massive problems that aren't anywhere near as bad in reality to get them to vote for them. So you're then in the weird position of a having a government deliberately inflating a problem that the people supposedly want to reduce and have voted that government in for, even though they're the people making it seem worse than it is.

When they say "you're not listening to us" what they mean is "you're not agreeing with us".

You can't just dismiss other people's opinions when you don't agree with them though. They still exist. The polls generally suggest that this forum is in a minority with its viewpoints, and I'm largely just trying to point out that a lot of people think differently, and also try and pass on why I think that is. Maybe you don't think immigration is a problem, but you cannot tell other people they are wrong for having issues with it. There are plenty of good reasons (particularly culturally) why you would want to limit it, as well as there are good reasons for encouraging it too.

There's another study which I came across this evening, and it is even more in line with what I am trying to get at. Looking at this, even supporters of pretty leftist parties think immigration levels are too high. I really think people should be more open minded to having an adult discussion about this, even if not everybody agrees on everything.

 

[David O'Day]

You can't just dismiss other people's opinions when you don't agree with them though. They still exist. The polls generally suggest that this forum is in a minority with its viewpoints, and I'm largely just trying to point out that a lot of people think differently, and also try and pass on why I think that is. Maybe you don't think immigration is a problem, but you cannot tell other people they are wrong for having issues with it. There are plenty of good reasons (particularly culturally) why you would want to limit it, as well as there are good reasons for encouraging it too.

There's another study which I came across this evening, and it is even more in line with what I am trying to get at. Looking at this, even supporters of pretty leftist parties think immigration levels are too high. I really think people should be more open minded to having an adult discussion about this, even if not everybody agrees on everything.

View attachment 28669

Another graph that doesn't show that a majority of people think immigration is too high. Outside of the right wind parties and a nationalist party who probably see english folk as immigrants there is not a majority who say immigration is too high.

A little tip for you, the number in the green box needs to be higher than the total of the number in the white and pink boxes

got anymore

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Another graph that doesn't show that a majority of people think immigration is too high. Outside of the right wind parties and a nationalist party who probably see english folk as immigrants there is not a majority who say immigration is too high.

A little tip for you, the number in the green box needs to be higher than the total of the number in the white and pink boxes

got anymore

I'm genuinely concerned at the amount of time you are left unsupervised.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You can't just dismiss other people's opinions when you don't agree with them though. They still exist. The polls generally suggest that this forum is in a minority with its viewpoints, and I'm largely just trying to point out that a lot of people think differently, and also try and pass on why I think that is. Maybe you don't think immigration is a problem, but you cannot tell other people they are wrong for having issues with it. There are plenty of good reasons (particularly culturally) why you would want to limit it, as well as there are good reasons for encouraging it too.

There's another study which I came across this evening, and it is even more in line with what I am trying to get at. Looking at this, even supporters of pretty leftist parties think immigration levels are too high. I really think people should be more open minded to having an adult discussion about this, even if not everybody agrees on everything.

View attachment 28669

I'm not dismissing their concerns. I've said earlier in this thread that it will have some negative consequences.

But if you have concerns you have to have something to back them up. And much of the hard evidence on the effect of immigration is that it has a positive effect, and where it does have a negative impact it is often far smaller than it is perceived to be.

But point that out and it's said that concerns aren't being listened to. They are. It's just that they're just being refuted with evidence. If I thought someone was stealing something from me and they refuted it and could prove they were nowhere near the area at the time I don't just get to say "Well I think you stole it and my concerns aren't being listened to." I have to prove that the evidence they've presented is false. It's all based on feelings, not facts.

Polls that ask people what they think isn't evidence of a problem. It's evidence of a perception of a problem. If there was a poll asking if unicorns were real and most people said yes it doesn't make them real. And the way to deal with that wouldn't be to say "OK, unicorns are real" it'd be to say "unicorns aren't real. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest they do."

 

[Deleted member 5849]

This is all madness... and distracting from the purpose of the government's bill.